warhammer40kfandomcom-20200222-history
User talk:Mentlegen324
Welcome Hi, welcome to Warhammer 40k! Thanks for your edit to the User:Mentlegen324 page. Please leave a message on my talk page if I can help with anything! -- Montonius (Talk) 10:10, September 8, 2011 Fan Made Pictures Depends very much on the picture and what you want to use it for. High quality or uniqueness are the primary deciding factors. Montonius 14:25, September 8, 2011 (UTC) I'm sorry I don't really know what you're asking. Assume all pictures you see on the wiki are meant to be there unless there is an obvious mistake or you want to discuss the appropriateness or quality of specific pictures. Talking about this in generalities is too difficult. And the picture of the Harakoni Warhawk female lieutenant you identified is a Harkoni Warhawk, she is simply not wearing the standard helmet and has some other variations of her gear. Please do not remove pictures from pages without prior discussion of why you think they should be removed. Montonius 18:25, September 8, 2011 (UTC) It is a Warhawk, it is one of the allowed variations of that group's colour scheme. Some of the regiments of the Warhawks differ from the standard armour colour scheme; this is one of them. Montonius 18:50, September 8, 2011 (UTC) I have removed your message because I have dealt with the matter. It is not meant as an insult, just basic housekeeping on a Talk Page that is getting quite full and difficult to manage. You don't like fan-made images; I understand your perspective. I'm happy with the ones we have made use of. Montonius 18:53, September 8, 2011 (UTC) Argument is fine, it makes the wiki better. I have no source for that specific colour combination. The picture was chosen by the editor of that page because it is obviously a Warhawk based on the armour and sigils used and I have seen that blue variant used in tournament play. I have no problem with a variant colour scheme for an Imperial Guard regiment, which are far more variable even when raised from the same world than are Space Marine Chapters. Additionally, variable colours even within a single regiment are completely canon. See the example of the 8th Cadian Regiment in the 4th Edition Imperial Guard Codex, pg. 31. If it makes you uncomfortable, I'd be happy to swap it out for a picture of similar quality and detail that displays what you feel are more appropriate colours if you can find one, though I have never seen one. However, in the absence of such a picture, it is needed as an illustration for that page. Montonius 20:16, September 8, 2011 (UTC) Could not confirm source on that Lasgun picture. Removed it. Montonius 21:47, September 8, 2011 (UTC) Content I am sorry, but we have already had a portion of this discussion in the context of the Imperial Guard page; I have no intention of rehashing it beyond this clarification. This wiki has always made use of and patronised fan art and will continue to do so. As I already explained, I am very aware of your dislike of fan-made art and I do understand your point of view on the matter; however, I do not share it, nor do most of our editors or administrators. The "majority" of art on this wiki is not even close to fan-made, but even if it was I would have no problem with it. You find some pictures low-quality; undoubtedly some are, some are simply not to your taste. Your contention that the wiki is somehow providing inaccurate infromation or "misleading" people is, in my opinion, hyperbole. Every single fact on this wiki is checked as well as can be done; when errors are found, as they always will be in any human endeavour, we correct them. We long ago made the decision to use fan-made art as we believe that "canon" does not include only official art. If you find this too deviant from what you define as canon, I perfectly understand that view, but again do not share it. Multiple artistic interpretations of the Warhammer 40,000 universe have always been a lively part of the hobby and we have chosen to showcase some of this artistic expression here. We can agree to disagree on whether only official art is canon, but we have chosen to use fan-made art as well as fan-made models and miniatures to display certain aspects of the world and that will not be changing. In the case of certain alien species or other artefacts of the universe, when there is no official art for them, I am happy to make use of the artistic license and creations of others if such exist to serve as place holders or to display certain concepts with the fresh eyes of a different style than the standard Gothic works of official art; if those creations are later superseded by an official rendering or determined to not be within the realm of possibility even within the bounds of artistic license, they will be replaced. My suggestion to you is if you find this unpalatable, then you should patronise the Lexicanum, as they are a wonderful wiki that is more well-established and has many more pages than this effort and whose guidelines may be more in line with your own vision for a Warhammer 40k wiki. Thanks for taking the time to raise your concerns. Montonius 09:57, November 7, 2011 (UTC) I have made the wiki's position clear in this matter. Unfortunately, as I have also made clear, I do not agree with you on any of these particulars, nor do I agree that much of the fan-made art here is in the wrong. What you see as inaccurate I see as perfectly within the bounds of artistic license. That is the crux of the difference and there is no bridging it. As to your contention concerning the Harakoni Warhawks, I also disagree with that statement. Find me a pink and green picture of the Warhawks that is of sufficiently high quality and fits with the theme of the page where it will be used and I will be quite happy to post it, on the page or in the page's gallery. I have made several changes to the wiki's content guidelines in light of our discussion to clarify things for other users, so that the issue of the use of fan-made art is now clear, and I thank you for bringing this matter to my attention to the benefit of all our users. Montonius 23:16, November 7, 2011 (UTC) This wiki's position in this matter has been made clear. There will be no unnecessary additions designating different statuses to the pictures on this wiki for all of the reasons I have already discussed. As to the Tau picture, those Tau do not all look the same height and even if they did, a reasonable person can actually read all the descriptions of the different castes and judge for themselves. I simply do not share this dislike for fan art that you and some others have or this terrible fear that people lack the judgment to differentiate text from artistic license. I understand your argument absolutely perfectly. I do not agree with it. Please stop making it. But as a reward for your perseverance and obvious committment to excellence, I will remove that particular Tau picture from the wiki. I do this out of respect for your position, but not because I actually believe the use of that particular picture was in any way inappropriate. However, that action will also mark the end of this topic. I do not agree with you or others who hold this position on fan art and constantly bringing it up to me will not change that. Please accept this or move to a different wiki. I will not be responding to any further concerns on this particular topic. Thank you. Montonius 14:57, November 8, 2011 (UTC) Tarellian/Demiurge Pictures Yes, it's very simple. Those pictures are awful and detract from the page. The other pictures look good and, without reopening this entire discussion, are accurate enough. That's it. So put up whatever pictures you want, but try and get the best quality pictures you can find. If such lower quality pictures are the only ones that you can find for a given theme or page, then we will make use of them. And please remember to add the legal disclaimer template to any pictures you add. Thanks.Montonius 11:08, November 9, 2011 (UTC) Night Lord You might want to have a look at that. I do not think myself superior to you, I honestly disagreed with your position. If you didn't understand my position, then it is my fault for not being clear enough. If you felt personally insulted in the course of that disagreement by anything I wrote, I apologise. I have a very specific vision for this Wiki that is intended, by design, to make it different from the Lexicanum. Many people disagree with it. That is their right. So they can vote with their eyeballs and patronise the Lex, which I promote myself to anyone who disagrees with our methodology. You are also wrong about the popularity of this wiki. I get usage figures on both this wiki and the Lexicanum, and we are not even close to them, because the community long ago chose the Lexicanum as their primary wiki when this wiki was abandoned years ago. So don't fret, we aren't polluting anybody with our Chaotic taint,because frankly, not that many people come here. But Mentlegen, or Night Lord, or whatever your name is, when you go rant publically on the Internet behind someone's back just to make yourself feel better because you were told no in an honest disagreement and you didn't like the outcome, what kind of person does that make you? Montonius 11:08, November 10, 2011 (UTC) P.S. That link was provided to me by Inquisitor S., the Lead Administrator of the Lexicanum, who is a friend of this wiki. And he's always watching... Apology fully accepted. You are more than welcome to remain a part of this community; my feelings were not hurt by any of this; frankly, you get used to it as an Administrator because you can't do more than write as best you can what you are trying to say and the Internet cannot show the tone it was written in. I have thought over some of the arguments you made and I have come to this compromise. While I still believe fan art has a place on this wiki, I do not wish to have anyone believe we are deliberately trying to push inaccuracies on people, even if it is only a misunderstanding, as happened to you. I would like you to remain and help me police inaccuracies. If I place a piece of fan art on this wiki that you recognise as being blatantly inaccurate, please bring it to my attention and I will remove it. I believe that this compromise will make this wiki a better place for everyone who enjoys our common hobby, which is all I have ever wanted. Thanks again, and I hope you stay among us. Montonius 15:15, November 10, 2011 (UTC) Nicassar Read the talk page for an answer on this matter. And yes, I approved the picture. Montonius 05:47, January 9, 2012 (UTC) Rogal Dorn It was reverted because it was not correct. The fate of Rogal Dorn has been retconned multiple times in many different sources. Index Astartes is but one. I suggest you read all the other sources listed for the article. Then, if you would still like to debate the matter, please do so with Algrim Whitefang, the Administrator who researched and wrote the original article and the information you sought to change. You will need his permission to change the article, and he should be the one to make any needed changes. Thank you. Montonius (talk) 20:36, August 15, 2013 (UTC)